BrokenEye wrote:Does anyone know why they're removing support for Jetpack/SDK extensions? The announcement page just says that no future versions of the browser will support then, but doesn't give a reason. What's up with that?

TwoTankAmin wrote:Since you say Origin can block groups such as trackers, beacons & widgets, could you provide some detail on how one goes about doing that? And within each of these groups, can Origin block specific sites?

Harry

There those things can be blocked by enabling the lists under the Privacy and Social categories. Enable these lists:

neophil78 wrote:I say it again: Ghostery in his way of functionning have NO equivalent, neither Ublock Origin, neither Priv3+

Again, you're wrong on that.

Please explain to us then, how one would selectively UNblock 3-4 sites out of the several thousand listed in Ghostery (which is what I always do when I setup a browser with Ghostery installed) using just uBlock Origin. (Which I also use, BTW, as a general-purpose adblocker and blocker of a few other things where I don't mind doing it in a 'blanket' way)

Also, uBlock does not have any interactive display of what is being blocked on the current page, including the ability to selectively un-block specific items. (No the logger is not equivalent)

So in a nutshell, it seems to me that your grand statement about someone being 'wrong', is wrong itself.

1. JustOff has developed a version of "Self-Destructing Cookies" for Pale Moon 27, available at https://github.com/JustOff/pm27-sdk-addons.2. This version of "Self-Destructing Cookies" is described as "Core functional, icon and menu disabled". That is, SDC's toolbar button is missing. Everything else appears to work in Pale Moon 27.

That's a quite amazing resource, what JustOff is doing - fixing all sorts of what I consider to be "critical" extensions to work in PM27. (EDIT: OH, and I didn't know about the other alternatives to SDC s/he links to either, wow.. )

Thanks for the link.

Maybe some day if I actually start learning real coding I will be in a position to re-write stuff like browser extensions. Certainly not going to happen any time real soon. So I'm grateful to those who are doing something to help in the meantime.

parpfish II wrote:For me, the best privacy tools are the ones that pump fake data into the privacy invasion world. I wish some clever Pale Moon coder could come up with a plugin that did 2 things:

1) Run fake search requests like Track Me Not did by randomly picking text from reputable news services and then running those to google et al. 2) Make fake background visits to real websites that are a) chosen from random searches (i.e. extend the one above, run the search, generate a number, 1 - 100, e.g. 39 would then visit the 39th link, and b) choose a starting link from a user created directory. Something akin to a lazy web-bot that goes a few clicks deep into each visit.

In the UK we've just allowed a terrible surveillance bill (Investigatory Powers Act) -- my feeling is, that such online surveillance only works well if you can trust the data. So the real solutions to many of the privacy invasions will come from undermining the data being collected, rather than trying to shut out the invasions (as per proxies etc.) i.e. hiding in the plain sight of lots of noise and little signal.

Just my two pennies worth.

P.

And my two pence worth - feel free to ignore at will: these tools that endeavour to make 'fake traffic' strike me as not dissimilar to certain wrong-headed email "anti-spam" utilities of yore which would send "fake bounce messages" to spam. They probably made the spam problem for that person worse, rather than better, and worse - gave a false sense of accomplishment.

With the amount of storage and processing-power that modern spy agencies like GCHQ and NSA have at their disposal, as well as various sorts of data-mining and AI systems to filter through all the collected data, my personal opinion is I would rather decrease my footprint rather than massively increase it. Because my puny effort to generate 'noise' is just a microscopic fraction of all the noise that such snoops have to weed through to find me anyway. And I'd rather that all that noise generation not bog my devices down and use up my bandwidth in the process of 'protecting' me, too.

TwoTankAmin wrote:Since you say Origin can block groups such as trackers, beacons & widgets, could you provide some detail on how one goes about doing that? And within each of these groups, can Origin block specific sites?

Harry

There those things can be blocked by enabling the lists under the Privacy and Social categories. Enable these lists:

neophil78 wrote:I say it again: Ghostery in his way of functionning have NO equivalent, neither Ublock Origin, neither Priv3+

Again, you're wrong on that.

Please explain to us then, how one would selectively UNblock 3-4 sites out of the several thousand listed in Ghostery (which is what I always do when I setup a browser with Ghostery installed) using just uBlock Origin. (Which I also use, BTW, as a general-purpose adblocker and blocker of a few other things where I don't mind doing it in a 'blanket' way)

Also, uBlock does not have any interactive display of what is being blocked on the current page, including the ability to selectively un-block specific items. (No the logger is not equivalent)

So in a nutshell, it seems to me that your grand statement about someone being 'wrong', is wrong itself.

I don't know what you're smoking, but if I had to whitelist something, I could do that easily. So in a nutshell, you are trying to start a flame war but it won't work on me.

Please explain to us then, how one would selectively UNblock 3-4 sites out of the several thousand listed in Ghostery (which is what I always do when I setup a browser with Ghostery installed) using just uBlock Origin. (Which I also use, BTW, as a general-purpose adblocker and blocker of a few other things where I don't mind doing it in a 'blanket' way)

Also, uBlock does not have any interactive display of what is being blocked on the current page, including the ability to selectively un-block specific items. (No the logger is not equivalent)

So in a nutshell, it seems to me that your grand statement about someone being 'wrong', is wrong itself.

I don't know what you're smoking, but if I had to whitelist something, I could do that easily. So in a nutshell, you are trying to start a flame war but it won't work on me.

In a nutshell, you are wrong.

You are making a sweeping simple statement that basically "X = Y". I'm saying no, some people might find X an OK substitute for Y, but Y has things that X does not.

If you'd like to dispute that, then it is not me looking for flamewars.

Please explain to us then, how one would selectively UNblock 3-4 sites out of the several thousand listed in Ghostery (which is what I always do when I setup a browser with Ghostery installed) using just uBlock Origin. (Which I also use, BTW, as a general-purpose adblocker and blocker of a few other things where I don't mind doing it in a 'blanket' way)

Also, uBlock does not have any interactive display of what is being blocked on the current page, including the ability to selectively un-block specific items. (No the logger is not equivalent)

So in a nutshell, it seems to me that your grand statement about someone being 'wrong', is wrong itself.

I don't know what you're smoking, but if I had to whitelist something, I could do that easily. So in a nutshell, you are trying to start a flame war but it won't work on me.

In a nutshell, you are wrong.

You are making a sweeping simple statement that basically "X = Y". I'm saying no, some people might find X an OK substitute for Y, but Y has things that X does not.

If you'd like to dispute that, then it is not me looking for flamewars.

Except, I'm not the one spreading misinformation and atleast I'm backing up my statements when asked to.

PhilK wrote:With the amount of storage and processing-power that modern spy agencies like GCHQ and NSA have at their disposal, as well as various sorts of data-mining and AI systems to filter through all the collected data, my personal opinion is I would rather decrease my footprint rather than massively increase it. Because my puny effort to generate 'noise' is just a microscopic fraction of all the noise that such snoops have to weed through to find me anyway. And I'd rather that all that noise generation not bog my devices down and use up my bandwidth in the process of 'protecting' me, too.

The point is that it doesn't require a vast amount of data to make the bulk untrustworthy. Since when you know some data (from an IP) is fake what you then can't determine is how much is fake. Think of it like a small drop of ink in water. It doesn't take much to sully the lot. But for there to be a little ink you need something generating fake stuff (just a little fake goes a long way - I'm reminded of the panic caused by a few tungsten filled gold bars ).

Returning user here from long hiatus within the Firefox camp. Managed to find a substitute for almost every (essentialish) add-on I had, just missing the functionality of these: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... rom-cache/ and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... /pure-url/ . Is Palemoon's cache already more aggressive than FF's? Doesn't feel like it, as seeing less "read..." and more "transferring..." status messages than when using Load from Cache add-on on Normal mode. It does give a nice little boost and less bandwidth usage, so would like to get that addressed in some way. Pure URL is just basically removing parts from URL like the utm stuff.

Contacted Abine to inquire about Blur for PM and here is their somewhat discouraging response:

Hi there,Unfortunately that is not a Browser that we support at this time. I would recommend using one of the supported browsersFireFox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera, or Safari.Best,Dave

Blur will remain installed as add-on and the Options button still brings up the dashboard. I use it mainly for email aliases and this way I can still stick with PM and get email aliases although in a much less convenient way.

It must be rage inducing for add-on developers that all these browsers and even within a browser family a multitude of add-on engines exist. The world would be much better off with just one browser that works right, means PM.

LoveNewBrowser wrote:Contacted Abine to inquire about Blur for PM and here is their somewhat discouraging response:

Hi there,Unfortunately that is not a Browser that we support at this time. I would recommend using one of the supported browsersFireFox, Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera, or Safari.Best,Dave

Blur will remain installed as add-on and the Options button still brings up the dashboard. I use it mainly for email aliases and this way I can still stick with PM and get email aliases although in a much less convenient way.

It must be rage inducing for add-on developers that all these browsers and even within a browser family a multitude of add-on engines exist. The world would be much better off with just one browser that works right, means PM.

I might suggest to Abine that I'd sooner abandon Blur than I would Pale Moon. I just wish they'd get their sh!t together and resolve the compatibility issues. Any company that doesn't, doesn't deserve my continued support.

Does anyone know of a Palemoon alternative to"Behind the Overlay"or"Behind the Overlay Revival"

Clicking the icon on the top bar when an overlay covers the active screen makes it disappear - it's great and sometimes necessary when there is an overlay that requires an answer - especially an answer that offers no choice!

Thank you for your answer - I did read the link you posted and tried to read the forum topic: A (potential?) solution for SDK extensions...

My knowledge is just too basic to get far. I did try with the behindtheoverlay.xpi to replace the install.rdf with the one in your link but had no idea what to do with the example of package.json. I checked the json files in the xpi but none looked as if they were at all similar.

What I've written probably sounds like nonsense because I haven't a clue so I apologize!

Also don't understand what it means to "make a fork" so there is no need for you to bother.

So, anyway, thank you for writing and I guess I'll just have to live without Behind the Overlay.